Word. And how exactly is what I'm saying any different?

The sentence before is the baseboard description of the word. The sentence that follows; clarifies. Or just how the word is implemented differently but still aligned with the root description. You say the meta exists because it does, but it doesn't how it is seen or heard or whatever word you'd like to use.

If the meta just is and doesn't care, isn't that just really a long winded way of saying its the experience of the player? Instead of addressing what I'm actually saying that has to do with the root description and mythological existence of the Meta within Xwing, are they actually better because the Meta said so? I say no. Until there is literally a chart backed by numbers that says so.

Whatever. I tried to help. Think whatever you want, mate.

Very meta...physical thread.

I summon the MajorJuggler!! Math lord of X-Wing!

*sacrifices a calculator and Aggressor model*

Generally speaking, the 'meta' will likely make up 50% of the field at a premier event. Now you can pretend it's a myth and ignore it, but you'll likely find yourself as dissappinted as the wife of the gentleman next to you who still believes the female orgasm is a myth as well.

Question how is it if 50% of a tournament is using the meta how can you say it's that meta when 50% are not using it?

Now I agree there are basic ideas of what are the main builds people are using because of direct copies of tournaments or modifications to suit them, I know if I want to get far I need to understand how palp aces or uboats work but even so there are so many curve balls that get thrown around that I'm not sure how prevalent the meta is going from one area to another, when does meta become random lists using powerful combinations?

Hear me out. I don't discount the lists that are super effective to a multitude of lists, (4 TLTS, PalpAces, 3 Uboats, Etc.) But until someone makes a game breaking mathematical graph of ships, their abilities, pilots, cards, upgrades etc and 4TLTS and PalpAces are at the top, then I will eat my shoe. It's mostly leather so it should work.

The reason I say this is because when everyone talks about "the Meta" everyone kinda clues in like word-of-mouth myths from the Arcades of Old and says, "Yeah. I agree. This is the best list. Because I saw one guy use it and it destroyed that other guy!" or "I don't really know too much about the game, but it sure is fun, maybe I'll give these awesome lists a chance because people won't stop talking about them."

I have seen on these forum something akin to a herd mentality. Or, more appropriately, 18th century court fashion followers. To me, it's simply nonsense. I've used all of the lists above in my weekly match ups multiple times and to be completely honest with you, the results definitely vary. Sometimes I win. Sometimes a bunny rips my throat out. The reason I'm on this soap box is because, everyone gets their jimmies rustled when they say certain ship builds ruin the game, because "They're too powerful!" To that I'll use a saying my daughter uses. That is bullspit.

The game is so flipping varied you can come up with a multitude of lists to combat others. Hell, Paul Heaver does it every freaking year! His method is much like my own, Just do your own thing, trying everything, don't listen to anyone else but yourself, and above all, HAVE FUN FOR HECK'S SAKE!

Because the Meta doesn't exist.

(Unless it does than I'll eat my shoe and post pictures of it boiling in my pot and call it "Shoe Stew."

1.) The meta definitely exists. The amount of U-Boats and Palp Aces proves that. These lists originally came out because they're so efficient (and MajorJuggler can mathematically prove to you why Palp Aces is top tier btw). People then copy these lists. If it was purely just bandwagoning, people would stop playing them after a while. People haven't stopped playing U-Boats or Palp Aces or other meta staples like Crackswarm. These are proven lists.

2.) Paul Heaver's Worlds lists are just meta lists tweaked slightly to have the advantage again other meta lists. His first Worlds list was 2 B's, and 2 X's, all at PS 4+ to counter everyone else's PS 2 ships. His second Worlds list was a Fat Han with R2-DCrew instead of gunner to counter the other fat turret players. His 2015 list had Poe, a TLT boat, and a stresshog in it. A bit more creative but still meta stuff.

3.) This game isn't perfectly balanced. If you take PS 2 B-Wings against a U-Boats player ,you'll probably lose it in two torpedoes and lose the game. If you bring 6 A-Wings you'll probably lose to Palp Aces, with useless 2 attack primaries without Crackshot. Certain matchups are very difficult mathematically or straight up autolosses pretty much.

Generally speaking, the 'meta' will likely make up 50% of the field at a premier event. Now you can pretend it's a myth and ignore it, but you'll likely find yourself as dissappinted as the wife of the gentleman next to you who still believes the female orgasm is a myth as well.

Question how is it if 50% of a tournament is using the meta how can you say it's that meta when 50% are not using it?

Now I agree there are basic ideas of what are the main builds people are using because of direct copies of tournaments or modifications to suit them, I know if I want to get far I need to understand how palp aces or uboats work but even so there are so many curve balls that get thrown around that I'm not sure how prevalent the meta is going from one area to another, when does meta become random lists using powerful combinations?

Because the other 50% of list that make up significantly smaller proportions of what will be there, and therefore there's a significantly smaller chance I will play them

In a 100 player tourney if 50 people are fielding meta lists and 50 people are flying completely unique lists, I can spend a few days practising against the meta lists knowing o have a 50/50 chance of playing one each round and I also have a 50% chance of playing a completely unique list, but how can I possibly even know what those lists will be ahead of time let alone get in multiple reps against all of them in preparation? I can't, but I can at least make sure I know how to play and beat the other 50% of the field running a much narrower field of lists.

Make sense?

Generally speaking, the 'meta' will likely make up 50% of the field at a premier event. Now you can pretend it's a myth and ignore it, but you'll likely find yourself as dissappinted as the wife of the gentleman next to you who still believes the female orgasm is a myth as well.

Question how is it if 50% of a tournament is using the meta how can you say it's that meta when 50% are not using it?

Because (very) generally speaking, the half the tournament that's running "meta" lists is the half that's winning games. Yes, the occasional "oddball" list is going to go deep (see: 4 HWKs going 6-0 on the first day of the Yavin System Open) but generally speaking by the later stages of a tournament the field is overwhelmingly likely to be at least two-thirds "meta" lists.

So: you don't need to RUN a "meta" list to do well. You DO need to know what you PLAN is against the pillars of the current meta (currently various flavours of Crackswarm, U-Boats and Palp Aces, obv).

The sentence before is the baseboard description of the word. The sentence that follows; clarifies. Or just how the word is implemented differently but still aligned with the root description. You say the meta exists because it does, but it doesn't how it is seen or heard or whatever word you'd like to use.

If the meta just is and doesn't care, isn't that just really a long winded way of saying its the experience of the player? Instead of addressing what I'm actually saying that has to do with the root description and mythological existence of the Meta within Xwing, are they actually better because the Meta said so? I say no. Until there is literally a chart backed by numbers that says so.

You're misunderstanding the word, applying your own definition and then railing against your own straw man. It's futile trying to get into a discussion with you because you're making up your own terms to batter them down. You're making this 'mythological meta' exist in order to say it doesn't exist. Of course it doesn't exist, because you just ******* invented it in order to say it doesn't exist!

But with my last dying breath of effort to try and engage you in discussion, here goes:

You want mathematical proof that Palp Aces and Triple Jumpmasters are better than six Z-95s or Fat Han. Well, I don't think anybody around here is trying to create that proof for you so if you're not going to do it yourself then I think your point becomes moot as it's a belief structure not a position approached via reason. It's like believing in creationism because you've created your own internal gatekeeper for what would be required to disprove your belief and nobody can meet it. Congrats, your prize is that you get to be a creationist while the the rest of us get on with our lives.

INDIRECTLY, though, surely the tournament records are precisely the proof you're looking for? They're the aggregated outcome of thousands of competitive games of X-Wing, backed by tens of thousands of practice games of X-Wing, which have by process of elimination produced an aggregate picture of which are the most successful squad lists. If there was no imbalance inherent within the quality of squads in the game then you would get a very even spread of results but the more than those results vary from a mean distribution towards clumps of repeated success from particular styles of squads then the more likely it is that it is indicative of an imbalance in the strength of the ships/pilots who repeatedly find success. There may well be some 'herd mentalty' at work, as you so respectfully described your fellow players, but actually if a squad can become more widely played and continue to find success then it's actually a proof of the strength of the squad and it's resilience to countermeasures as popularity grows.

It's circular: Palp Aces wins a lot because everyone plays it. Why does everyone play it? Because it wins a lot. You can try and turn it into a chicken/egg argument if you like, but unless you think Palp Aces originally became popular because it was losing a lot and everyone felt sorry for it then I don't really know what to say to you.

So, there you go. I've got no evidence that God didn't create the metagame in 7 days. But we keep on finding Palp Aces bones at a depth that would be consistent with what we believe to be the passage of many hundreds of millions of years, and by our understanding of the physics of the universe this tallies to our understanding of the age of Contracted Scouts. But if you wanted a video of a living dinosaur next to a newspaper that's dated 250m BC in order to disprove your belief that the metagame doesn't exist then, well... good luck to you, sir.

What. Does. It. Mean. Then?

The metagame is best thought of as the "game of the game". It will always exist, but it doesn't really mean the same thing that a lot of people think it means. It means those that think about other people's game. So...if you have a friend that ALWAYS plays Soontir Fel when he plays Imperials...and you decide to play a game and he plays Imperials....you plan against Soontir Fel. That's metagame.

Metagame when it comes to tournaments is just thinking about what others are going to bring and what you can bring to stop them. So, if Wave x just comes out and you are expecting people to bring ship y from Wave x....so you bring a way to stop it. Or....you know the best local guy loves to fly Poe Dameron a certain way....and you bring something you know will beat it. That's meta.

I was just listening to the Kessel Run and one of the guys built a list to defeat Imp Aces as that's what he was expecting at a Regionals. Well, he didn't face any all day. That's metagaming. Not effective, but it is metagaming.

So, one can say the "meta" is what you are thinking others are going to bring to a tournament. No matter what the list is, you are expecting them to bring something and plan accordingly. That's metagaming. It doesn't have to be accurate, but that's what it is.

To me META has always seemed like a lot of people thinking at the same time "hay that list worked, I like that list, I'll try it". Then the first time they play it there unsure but see a lot of other people playing it. This makes them think the list must be good so I'll keep practising. This turns them not into a good player with a good list but a rehearsed player with a list making it look like they are a good player with a good list. The list may be a good one but it is the rehearsed movements that help people with Meta list go the distances. The rehearsed movements make it easy for them to face off against different groups of players who saw a different list and followed the same steps creating different "Meta" lists. Most of the time there are 3 or 4 of these groups when the groups are Identified (at the time of posting Palp aces, 3 U Boats and a Crack Swam of some type)

The thing I hate most about Meta is because enough people fail into this category the idea of building original list becomes strange. Many start to fear the Idea of building new list as there fear of not doing well at tournaments becomes to much for some to handle. Master Builders (I just watched the lego movie with the kids today ) do not fear losing games as this makes them better Master builders. Every loss teaches them that what they tried needs a bit of work. But when a list combo that they try does work the way they designed it to it is more rewarding then any of the stuff FFG put into the tournament kits.

If you haven't worked out by now my biggest hate of META is that it destroys original thinking among players and creates, as I said above, rehearsed players not good players. There is nothing I like more then when I put down my ship cards and upgrades and my opponent says "I don't know how to deal with that". When you hear that then you know your not dealing with a good player. Its one of the best things about the city I live in not a lot of Meta players and lots of original lists. there are some Meta guys but not many of them and lucky for me they don't show up to a lot of the tournaments I go to.

My hope is one day people give up on Meta and become free thinkers and develop there own list and earn the name "Master Builder"

Lists don't get to the top in the first place without merit, but once they do replication will cause them to stay a staple until it's spooked out by a new hotness.

Think about it: when a U-Boat wins a tournament now it doesn't mean one U-Boat entered and trounced its competitors. A ton of U-Boats entered, and each additional U-Boat list increases the chance of one U-Boat list winning overall. When something becomes a "Sand-Wing" meta staple a huge number of those lists are entered into a tournament, so that one of them places highly isn't surprising even in perfect balance.

Even in U-Boat's first win there were a lot of them.

INDIRECTLY, though, surely the tournament records are precisely the proof you're looking for? They're the aggregated outcome of thousands of competitive games of X-Wing, backed by tens of thousands of practice games of X-Wing, which have by process of elimination produced an aggregate picture of which are the most successful squad lists. If there was no imbalance inherent within the quality of squads in the game then you would get a very even spread of results but the more than those results vary from a mean distribution towards clumps of repeated success from particular styles of squads then the more likely it is that it is indicative of an imbalance in the strength of the ships/pilots who repeatedly find success.

Assuming each list is equally represented, which it is not.

While the chance of the player winning the tournament remains the same, the chance of a list type winning increases with the number of that archetype entering the tournament.

INDIRECTLY, though, surely the tournament records are precisely the proof you're looking for? They're the aggregated outcome of thousands of competitive games of X-Wing, backed by tens of thousands of practice games of X-Wing, which have by process of elimination produced an aggregate picture of which are the most successful squad lists. If there was no imbalance inherent within the quality of squads in the game then you would get a very even spread of results but the more than those results vary from a mean distribution towards clumps of repeated success from particular styles of squads then the more likely it is that it is indicative of an imbalance in the strength of the ships/pilots who repeatedly find success.

Assuming each list is equally represented, which it is not.

While the chance of the player winning the tournament remains the same, the chance of a list type winning increases with the number of that archetype entering the tournament.

Yes it does. And the numbers of a list type entering a tournament increases with the success it's delivered in previous tournaments.

It's circular. Past success makes future success more likely.

However as the popularity of a list grows it's likely to meet more direct competition from players better prepared for it, so in theory it's also true that as a list becomes more successful it finds it harder to replicate that success. The lists that can win enough to become popular, then keep winning once they've become popular, have earned it the hard way. You can't discount that.

My hope is one day people give up on Meta and become free thinkers and develop there own list and earn the name "Master Builder"

...except....if you develop a good list that is original....then your local opponents will develop the "meta" of your new list and try to figure out something that will beat it. You can't get rid of meta. It's always around. There is meta when you play the Missions. It's just trying to beat a known list type out there. If you play Mission 1, you know the Rebels will take Biggs. That's meta.

Netlisting is what you are thinking about. Taking someone's list online and using it. That's pretty annoying. Or Groupthink that Rebels are bad and you must take either U-boats or Imp Aces.

Since I play 90% of my games against a friend of mine, my current meta is hugely different: All Scum, all Boba. I hate that guy. On my end, I mostly end up with some kind of bomb squad, which means almost always Deathrain + Support. I can't help it, he's just so much fun: "Here, have a conner net and kindly fly your undamaged, 50+ point ship off the board for me."

So, to answer the question: Yes, the Meta does exist.

Technically if you hit him with a conner net he's not undamaged anymore

Perhaps the Conner Net scared his opponent so bad he flew off the board undamaged instead of flying through the bomb

INDIRECTLY, though, surely the tournament records are precisely the proof you're looking for? They're the aggregated outcome of thousands of competitive games of X-Wing, backed by tens of thousands of practice games of X-Wing, which have by process of elimination produced an aggregate picture of which are the most successful squad lists. If there was no imbalance inherent within the quality of squads in the game then you would get a very even spread of results but the more than those results vary from a mean distribution towards clumps of repeated success from particular styles of squads then the more likely it is that it is indicative of an imbalance in the strength of the ships/pilots who repeatedly find success.

Assuming each list is equally represented, which it is not.

While the chance of the player winning the tournament remains the same, the chance of a list type winning increases with the number of that archetype entering the tournament.

Yes it does. And the numbers of a list type entering a tournament increases with the success it's delivered in previous tournaments.

It's circular. Past success makes future success more likely.

However as the popularity of a list grows it's likely to meet more direct competition from players better prepared for it, so in theory it's also true that as a list becomes more successful it finds it harder to replicate that success. The lists that can win enough to become popular, then keep winning once they've become popular, have earned it the hard way. You can't discount that.

"However as the popularity of a list grows it's likely to meet more direct competition from players better prepared for it,"

If you mean players become more experienced fighting it, players also become more experienced using it.

If you mean more counters are deployed, could you direct me to a U-Boat counter list that is not itself countered by another metagame archetype?

A list that reaches the top stays at the top by duplication: in a 16 player tournament with one Fat Han and six U-Boats the chances of the Fat Han placing highly are much lower than the chances of a U-Boat placing highly even in perfect balance.

The metagame, by its very definition, certainly does exist.

I believe the phrase you are looking for is "tires don exits," in which case you are still wrong.

"Stays at the top by duplication"

Haha, yeah ok. By duplication and by continuing to be better than anything anyone else can come up with to counter it.

You really have zero respect for your fellow players, do you? They're all just mindless sheep to you, incapable of original thought. "Herp derp" said the community of smart and driven people looking for a competitive advantage, "let's just do what he did. Herp derp".

I have a medal here for "Worlds Greatest X-Wing Thinker", what's your address - I'll mail it on to you!

Metagame is nothing more than unwritten / unspecified gameplay. "The Rule of 11" is metagame. "Fly Casual" is metagame. Physical aids to help you remember to take (any) action, also metagame. A token to track Palpatine Usage? Meh tah.

Deck-building / List-building are part of the written/specified gameplay in a game like this... So List-Building isn't metagame. However... There are unwritten / unspecified elements of List-Buidling creating its own, unique, metagame. Which is why some people like building lists and some people would rather download a list. Some of us have built 100's of lists with no hope of ever flying them all -- building it is more than half of the fun and we keep building.

This thread is hilarious.

Nerds.

Hear me out. I don't discount the lists that are super effective to a multitude of lists, (4 TLTS, PalpAces, 3 Uboats, Etc.) But until someone makes a game breaking mathematical graph of ships, their abilities, pilots, cards, upgrades etc and 4TLTS and PalpAces are at the top, then I will eat my shoe. It's mostly leather so it should work.

The reason I say this is because when everyone talks about "the Meta" everyone kinda clues in like word-of-mouth myths from the Arcades of Old and says, "Yeah. I agree. This is the best list. Because I saw one guy use it and it destroyed that other guy!" or "I don't really know too much about the game, but it sure is fun, maybe I'll give these awesome lists a chance because people won't stop talking about them."

I have seen on these forum something akin to a herd mentality. Or, more appropriately, 18th century court fashion followers. To me, it's simply nonsense. I've used all of the lists above in my weekly match ups multiple times and to be completely honest with you, the results definitely vary. Sometimes I win. Sometimes a bunny rips my throat out. The reason I'm on this soap box is because, everyone gets their jimmies rustled when they say certain ship builds ruin the game, because "They're too powerful!" To that I'll use a saying my daughter uses. That is bullspit.

The game is so flipping varied you can come up with a multitude of lists to combat others. Hell, Paul Heaver does it every freaking year! His method is much like my own, Just do your own thing, trying everything, don't listen to anyone else but yourself, and above all, HAVE FUN FOR HECK'S SAKE!

Because the Meta doesn't exist.

(Unless it does than I'll eat my shoe and post pictures of it boiling in my pot and call it "Shoe Stew."

Those graphs you're talking about are on List Juggler. Check it out.

"Stays at the top by duplication"

Haha, yeah ok. By duplication and by continuing to be better than anything anyone else can come up with to counter it.

You really have zero respect for your fellow players, do you? They're all just mindless sheep to you, incapable of original thought. "Herp derp" said the community of smart and driven people looking for a competitive advantage, "let's just do what he did. Herp derp".

I have a medal here for "Worlds Greatest X-Wing Thinker", what's your address - I'll mail it on to you!

I think I touched a nerve.

Or three horseshoe shaped nerves.

Nevertheless, I'm having trouble relating your tirade to anything I actually said.

I read the thread title too quickly and thought that we were all turning vegetarian.

It's meta, not meat. Come to think of it, I haven't bitten into a good steak in a while.

that is literally what meta is.

Metagame is just a term people use to describe the OP without putting a wall o text lol.